G.G.S.I. Eye Research & Cure Centre
This is a discussion on G.G.S.I. Eye Research & Cure Centre within the Hospital forums, part of the Medical category; First Appeal No. 2009/359 (Arising from the order dated 17.04.2009 passed by District Forum(East) Saini Enclave, Delhi, in Complaint Case ...
- 01-21-2010, 11:33 AM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
G.G.S.I. Eye Research & Cure Centre
First Appeal No. 2009/359
(Arising from the order dated 17.04.2009 passed by District Forum(East) Saini Enclave, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.1043/2007)
Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma, … Appellant/Complainant
616A/1A, 60 Foota Road, through Sh. Sumit K. Khatri
Shastri Gali, Vishwas Nagar advocate
1. G.G.S.I. Eye Research & ... Respondent/OP
31, Defence Enclave,
Vikas Marg, New Delhi
2. Dr. Gurbax Singh,
Director & Chief Surgeon,
31, Defence Enclave,
Vikas Marg, New Delhi
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President
Sh. M.L. Sahni … Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President(ORAL)
1. Short facts of the case are that the appellant complainant filed a complaint before District Forum(East) against the Ops on the allegation that he was operated upon his right eye in OP No.1 Centre by its Director OP No.2 Dr. Gurbax Singh, for which he had paid him Rs.31,500/- but as was assured he could not regain his complete vision. His further allegation is that he visited OP No.2 quite a number of times and was treated but nothing came out. He prayed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and the court fees Rs.3,000/- against the OPs.
2. OPs opposed the complaint by filing written submission with a specific plea that the complainant was never operated upon at OP No.1 Centre by OP No.2, and the operation was performed somewhere in Ghaziabad and after it he had visited the OPD of OP No.1 Centre for treatment, where he came four times thereafter he stopped coming and the lost follow up. The complainant’s eye sight had improved by the treatment of the OPs.
3. The District Forum after considering the evidence of both the parties held that the complainant has failed to prove that he was operated by OP No.2 on his eye and therefore no question of negligence on the part of OP No.2 arises and dismissed the complaint.
4. That is what brings the complainant in appeal here.
5. We have heard Sh. Sumit K. Khatri, counsel for the appellant at the preliminary stage of admission.
6. During the course of hearing on our query what evidence supports his contention that complainant was operated upon at OP No.1 Centre by OP No.2, the counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards the prescriptions filed with the list of documents at page No.12, 13 and 14 on the file.
7. We have carefully gone through these prescriptions pertaining to OP No.1 Centre. These prescription which contain the name of the medicines prescribed to complainant do not at all indicate about the operation at OP No.1 Centre by OP No.2. Barring these there is no other documentary evidence of the complainant, which could suggest that complainant was operated on his eye and the operation so done was performed at OP No.1 Centre by OP No.2
8. The appellant therefore has miserably failed that he was operated at any point of time at OP No.1 Centre by OP No.2. The District Forum was therefore fully justified in arriving at the abovementioned conclusion and the order passed by the District Forum calls for no interference.
9. Appeal has no merits and is dismissed in limine.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. Announced on the 16th day of November 2009.
- 02-16-2010, 09:24 PM #2Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
beware of advocates , people use your sense,
ADVOCATES MAKE UP NICE BUTTERING STORY THAT YOU WILL PAID NICELY BY HOSPITAL OR INSURANCE, EXTRA..... BUT TRUTH IS CONSULTANT DOCTOR OR MEDICAL COUCNICL OF INDIA OR TRY TO PRESENT YOUR CASE ON YOUR OWN, ATLEAST YOU WILL ESCAPED FROM FINANCIAL LOSS BY ADVOCATES.....
EVERY OPERATION OR PROCEDURE OR INJECTION HAVE SOME REACTION OR COMPLICATION, WE SIGN CONSENT FORM BEFORE UNDERGOING ANY OPERATION MINOR OR MAJOR OPERATION.
ALL THESE MEDICAL CASES ARE REFERRED TO MEDICAL BOARD, AS PER SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADVOCATES WHO HAVE VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MEDICAL STUFF,,,, CAN'NT JUDGE PROPERLY, SO ITS YOU TO DECIDE,....... WHAT THEY ARE UPTO???
AS I WAS GOING THAT SENIOR MEMBER ADV SINGH...... NEED S HIS PUBLICITY ........
There is judgement by supreme court of India
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3541 OF 2002 Martin F. D'Souza .. Appellant -versus-
Mohd. Ishfaq .. Respondent
A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because
things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment
in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. He
would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a
reasonably competent practitioner in his field. For instance, he would be liable
if he leaves a surgical gauze inside the patient after an operation vide
Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & others vs. State of Maharashtra & others, AIR
1996 SC 2377 or operates on the wrong part of the body, and he would be also
criminally liable if he operates on someone for removing an organ for
As observed by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew's case :
"In the matter of professional liability professions
differ from other occupations for the reason that professions operate in spheres
where success cannot be achieved in every case and very often success or failure
depends upon factors beyond the professional man's control."...............
"A medical practitioner faced with an emergency ordinarily tries
his best to redeem the patient out of his suffering. He does not gain anything
by acting with negligence or by omitting to do an act. Obviously, therefore, it
will be for the complainant to clearly make out a case of negligence before a
medical practitioner is charged with or proceeded against criminally. A surgeon
with shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful
operation and a quivering physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine
to his patient.
If the hands be trembling with the dangling fear of facing a criminal
prosecution in the event of failure for whatever reason - whether attributable
to himself or not, neither can a surgeon successfully wield his life-saving
scalpel to perform an essential surgery, nor can a physician successfully
administer the life-saving dose of medicine. Discretion being the better part of
valour, a medical professional would feel better advised to leave a terminal
patient to his own fate in the case of emergency where the chance of success may
be 10% (or so), rather than taking the risk of making a last ditch effort
towards saving the subject and facing a criminal prosecution if his effort
fails. Such timidity forced upon a doctor would be a disservice to
When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the
doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be
punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals,
what to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer
cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be
penalized for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submissions.
We, therefore, direct that whenever a complaint is received against a
doctor or hospital by the Consumer Fora (whether District, State or National) or
by the Criminal Court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital
against whom the complaint was made the Consumer Forum or Criminal Court should
first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors,
specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed,
and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case
of medical negligence should notice be then issued to the concerned
doctor/hospital. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctors who may not be
ultimately found to be negligent. We further warn the police officials not to
arrest or harass doctors unless the facts clearly come within the parameters
laid down in Jacob Mathew's case (supra), otherwise the policemen will
themselves have to face legal action.
On the facts of this particular case, we are of the opinion that the
appellant was not guilty of medical negligence. Resultantly, the appeal is
allowed; the impugned judgment and order of the National Commission is set
aside. No costs.
February 17, 2009.
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 10:45 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 12:31 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-31-2009, 12:25 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-31-2009, 12:19 PM
- By Tanu in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-31-2009, 11:57 AM